GOP in Congress bears most fault for lack of compromise
Thank you for the thoughtful Editor's Note column Aug. 4, "Wanted: passionate moderates."
I agree with you that compromise in government is a necessity. We do not have a parliamentary system where compromise is less important. In our government, Republicans and Democrats must compromise if anything is going to get done. Until recently, both parties have been willing to do this.
But I believe you have to go one step further and think about who is responsible for our current dysfunctional Congress.
There are undoubtedly left-wing Democrats who will not compromise. But they are not in power and there are very few of them in Congress.
On the other hand, the Republican Party has been completely taken over by people who refuse to compromise.
Nothing illustrated this better than one of the Republican presidential primary debates. The candidates were asked if they would accept a deal that cut $10 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. The answer from all candidates was an emphatic "no."
Another example is the pledge almost all congressional Republicans have signed that they will never vote to increase taxes on anybody ever again as long as they live.
The president and Democrats in Congress have put forward numerous proposals, many of which contained ideas previously suggested by Republicans. They are all shot down by Republicans now in Congress. These Republicans cynically believe that if they bring government to a halt, they will have abetter chance to win the 2012 elections.
Republicans have become the anti-government party. They are willing to shut down the government and force the country into default in order to get their way. They think tolerance, diversity and compromise are all bad words. Their idea of compromise is for Democrats to surrender to their point of view.
For too long, failure to accomplish anything in Congress has been attributed to extremists in both parties. A look at the facts will show that it is much more one-sided than that.
It is Republican voters who will again have to elect representatives willing to compromise (passionate moderates), or our current gridlock will last indefinitely.
Residents fed false propaganda
that declares fluoridation safe
I helped to obtain signatures on the moratorium petition to remove fluoride from the city water supply until the supplier can prove it's safe and effective for everyone.
The people in this town have been fed propaganda for too long. Too many have been harmed. I would think that for health safety alone, the City Council wouldn't want the liability.
Part of the reason I'm so against it is because in the city where I grew up, Antioch, Calif we had fluoride in our water. At young ages my sister and brother have had to have all their teeth pulled. My younger brother and I are hopelessly hanging onto the few teeth we have left. We all had dental problems growing up, mostly cavities, and we weren't allowed to eat candy.
Today, I don't drink the water that has fluoride in it. I have found that even taking a shower in fluoridated water makes my skin itch, and I constantly have to use lotion. Also, I have a thyroid condition made worse by drinkinghydrofluorosilicic acid. I hope people in this city wise up and realize that we've been lied to for decades. This forced fluoridation is not effective. It's not necessary. It hurts and harms almost everyone I know.
This year I found out that infants should not drink formula with fluoridated water. But our City Council ignores warning the parents in this town. Last week a Harvard study linked lower IQ to fluoride. How many more warnings do we need that this "medication" is bad?
If our schools have such low scholastic and academic ratings, and such high obesity levels, why isn't the School Board either insisting that the city remove it because it's so bad for the kids, or that fluoride be filtered out of the schoolchildren's water supply?
Insulted by the claims made
about local Tea Party views
I am insulted by Summer Moore's July 24 letter ("Insulted by Tea Party's attitude toward freedomand humanity") in which she strongly implies, but doesn't quite say:
1. The Tea Party disrespects veterans and dishonors people that have died to protect our freedom.
2. The Tea Party believes and preaches that freedom comes only from God and birth.
3. The Tea Party has told her to teach her children that freedom is something other than what she thinks it is.
4. The Tea Party is against battered women, hungry children and old people receiving helpful services.
5. The Tea Party has no respect for humanity.
I have no authority to speak for anyone except myself. However, I do regularly attend Tea Party meetings. Aside from the few statements that say how she feels or what she does, I firmly believe her letter has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.